Hello Roger,
from other threat I understand you have these two boards. I know you had &#39;plenty&#39; of FT148. Did you have a chance to test the new iS145?
Could you please comment on differences in these 2 boards w.r.t. (this is a priority order for me at least):
1) Early planning,
2) Upwind /Downwind ability
3) Higher wind handling (say ~15knots)
4) Is it possible to put on iS145 a bigger fin, say 65cm (I know FT148 is fine with 70cm)

Thank you in advance for your help,
Paul

Roger

9th October 2006, 01:37 PM

Hi Paul,
I have not had sufficient time to really test the Isonic 145 yet, as I&#39;ve been working alot and traveling across the country between work trips.
I&#39;m hoping to get to do some serious testing in the next couple of weeks.
So far, I&#39;ve found some differences between these two boards, but I need a bit more time on the 145 to anser your questions from direct experiences.
I&#39;ll give you some anwers as soon as I get time on the board.
Hope this helps,

Karen

12th October 2006, 08:35 PM

Hi Roger

Just like Paul I am very curious about your Isonic test results too.
Myself, I am a happy owner of a FF-138 while my husband has got a FF-158 (both 2004).
My husband doesn&#39;t like the fysical feeling of the FF-158 with the Sailworks Retro 11.0 too much because he finds that the combo is soon feeling to big as soon as the wind picks up. In his opinion its windrange is too small.
He has now bought an S-Type 137, realizing that he will loose quite some low end windrange.

One of the new Isonics could maybe give him the possibility to plane almost as early as his FF-combo without being that fysical.
What do you think?

Kind regards

Karen

Roger

15th October 2006, 12:31 AM

Hi Karen,
Yes, I&#39;m sure the early planing characteristics of the S-Type 137 left quite a bit to be desired vs the FF or F-Type 158.
How heavy (weight) is your husband?
I&#39;m not sure if it&#39;s the FF (F-Type) 158 or the 11.0 m2 Retro that&#39;s "feeling big" too soon.
If your husband isn&#39;t over 90 Kg. (198.4 lbs.) then the Isonic 145 at
88cm wide would certainly give him more range. Has he sailed your FF-138?
That would be similar to the Isonic 145 (width and length) but with slightly less volume.
If he finds your board to be too narrow to get planing early then the "compromise" would be the Isonic 155 at 95.5 cm wide.
Hope this helps,

Karen

20th October 2006, 07:56 PM

Hi Roger

My husband weighs 88 kg.
It&#39;s rather the Retro 11.0m? that is "feeling big" too soon.
He has sailed my FF-138 which is wider than the IS-145 though: 96 cm x 222 cm.

Maybe he should try a Retro 10.0 or 9.5m?? Will he loose a lot of range in the low end with these sails? With the 11.0 he can plane in =>7 knots.

Kind regards

Karen

Roger

20th October 2006, 10:38 PM

Hi Karen,
What is your husband&#39;s "next size down" rig, and do you have some smaller fins for the FT-148.
I&#39;m smaller (75 Kg) and I would sort of agree that the FT-148 feels "big" but I&#39;ve had some sessions on it with the stock fin (not a 70 when I want to get going the earliest) and 8.5-9.5 rigs and these changes made the board feel qiute a bit smaller
Does he use an adjustable outhaul on the 11.0 m2 Retro?
With an adjustable outhaul he would be able to "tune the power" in the big Retro so that as sonn as it&#39;s feeling "big" he can take some power out of it.
This would be the least expensive way to find out if it&#39;s the Retro, or the FT-148 that feeling too big too quickly.
Using a 10.0m2 or 9.5m2 rig would not affect early planing by more than a knot. At your husbands weight he&#39;s right in the range to make a slightly small sail plane just as early with good technique.
His ability to get the FT-148 planing in =>7 knots tells me he already has very good technique.
If he can borrow or demo a 10.0 m2/9.5m2 Retro on alight wind day that would be the best way to find out what the differences are.
Also, where does he run his mast foot on the 11.0 m2?
At the front of the track, in the middle, or near the rear?
Changing the position of the mast foot can really affect how the F-Types feel and it may be that he needs to bring the mast foot back when he feels the board is "too big" or if he already has it back maybe move it forward a little to "settle" the board.
Hope this helps,

Karen

24th October 2006, 04:50 PM

Hi Roger,

My husband has got a FF-158 (not the F-Type 148) which is 1 m wide.
The board is feeling big with the Retro 11 and a 70 cm fin (SB Jim Drake 2004).
He uses an adjustable outhaul but it has not been "fine tuned" yet (he has to improve it).
His next sail down is my "biggest sail" - a Retro 9.0m which he uses with the standard 64cm fin.
The mast foot position for the 11.0m?? is a little bit at the front of the track.

I think you brought up something interesting to know:
if he looses only 1 knot in the low end range it&#39;s worth trying the 10 and 9.5 in order to find out which of the 2 sails gives him the best feeling and than buy one.

Thanks for your help!

Karen

NB: At my weight (62kg) I still have lots of fun with my FF-138 (F-Type 148) and the Retro 9.0m because I am planing on days that a lot of people are just waiting for the wind to come!

Roger

24th October 2006, 11:47 PM

Hi Karen,
You are correct, of course!
I knew he had the FF-158, but somehow when I started writing my reply, my mind switched the FF-158 with the F-Type 148.
What I wrote applies more to the FF and FT 158&#39;s than it does to the
F-Type 148.
I had the FF-158 and FF-138 2 years ago, and actually kept the FF-138 (but I gave it to Ellen when I started getting the F-Type 148&#39;s).
Sorry for the confusion, My bad!
What mast is your husband using in the 11.0 m2 Retro?
A 520 cm or a 550 cm ? And what carbon percentage?
I think the 10.0 m2 or the 9.5 m2, on a 100% carbon mast would make the rig alot lighter get the SW "Lightstick" if you can afford it as it really "lightens up" the whole rig, but they are very "pricey".
Sounds like you get big sail conditions alot of the time, so it may be wise to spend the extra $$ on the super light mast to make these big rigs as comfortable as possible.
Also, if he gets the adj. outhaul working right, he should be able to easily add some outhaul and get really good mid range performance without having to readjust the downhaul.
Rig it pretty full (maybe even a little less than recommended on the downhaul, allowing the batten above the boom to be between the middle and the front of the mast, for the best early planing performance, and then as the wind (or his speed) increases, begin to add more outhaul to flatten out the overall depth a little.
Hope this helps,

Karen

25th October 2006, 02:26 PM

Hi Roger,

My husband is using a Gun mast of the type "Terminator" at 100 % carbon. Length: 520 cm
Gun is a German brand which is interesting if the comparison price/quality is important (due to budget reasons). As we tried some finetuning on the 11.0m (thanks to your instructions in an other topic earlier this season) the sail shows now a very nice deep static profile when it&#39;s rigged.
Therefore I suppose that the mast is compatible with the sail, don&#39;t you think so?

One of the things we still can improve is like you suggested the tuning of the adjustable outhaul. Up to now it is rather difficult to pull the lines in order to flatten the sail. Therefore I think that there is something "wrong".

Moreover, I think we should add a 10 or 9.5 Retro to our collection but hope we can try it out before buying one.Very often I still feel confortable with the 9.0 when my husband&#39;s 11.0 is getting too big and thus getting out of control

Thanks for your help!

Karen

Roger

25th October 2006, 11:27 PM

Hi Karen,
Can you explain to me how you are rigging your adjustable outhaul on the end of the boom
What type of boom are you using and how many pulleys (rolling sheaves) does the boom end have?
Also are you running the outhaul line through the clew grommet or do you have some sort of pulley assembly bolted into the clew grommet
Did you buy an adjuatable outhaul "kit" or make it up yourselves
The Sailworks Adj.Outhaul kits I use, when correctly rigged as a 4 part tackle on the rear end, are very easy to adjust.
I use 2 Harken ball bearing blocks with a small screw and nylon spacer in the clew grommet and this makes the entire system super easy to adjust.
I&#39;ll have to dig through some old hard drives and come up with photos of the system I use so you can compare it to what you are using.
Do you use an adj. outhaul on your 9.0 m2 Retro?
Also, can you take a photo of the 11.0 m2 rigged on the Gun mast?
Hope this helps,

Karen

26th October 2006, 02:39 AM

Hi Roger,

We are using an adjustable outhaul kit from NeilPryde.
The boom is a HPL Race carbon boom (up to 305 cm).
I don&#39;t know how many pulleys the boom end has got (our gear is in Holland right now).
We have a kind of clew "rolls" from Chinook through the clew in order to make it easier.
Maybe we should control the lines and find out if there is no "twist" or something which "blocks" the pulling of the lines.

I use such an adjustable outhaul system on the 9.0 too but I have more or less the same problem. I can pull it to some extent but than everything seems blocked which makes I cannot use it to 100 % (in my personal feeling).

I have some nice pictures of the 11.0m on the Gun mast. If you tell me how I can send it to you I will do so (personal email or something).

Thanks for all your efforts!

Karen

Roger

26th October 2006, 09:49 AM

Hi Karen,
Are your HPL Race Booms blue in color (the grip material) or Red.
The older blue HPL booms have 4 pulleys in the rear end, the newer Red grip HPL race booms have 3 pulleys in the rear end.
Please send your photos of the 11.0 m2 on the Gun mast to:
sailquik@mindspring.com
I&#39;ll send you back some photos of different adjustable outhaul clew rigging methods for 3 and 4 pulley booms.
I&#39;ll also have a look at the NP Adj Outhaul kit to see what components they provide and maybe we can get your adj outhaul working at about half the current effort.
Hope this helps,

paulk

18th November 2006, 04:56 PM

Hi Roger,
it&#39;s Paul again,- did you have &#39;sufficient&#39; time on your IS145?
Can you please answer those questions in 1st message?
Thanks,
P

Roger

20th November 2006, 09:36 AM

Hi Paul,
I apologise for not responding sooner, but I&#39;ve been working and traveling so much lately that I have not been out on the Isonic 145.
I&#39;m heading for Florida this week and I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll get some time on the 145 there.
Sorry!

Karen

27th November 2006, 02:32 AM

Hi Roger,

I am looking forward to your test findings on the IS-145!

Karen

Roger

27th November 2006, 05:12 AM

Hi Paul K and Karen,
I&#39;m really sorry to disappoint..... unfortunately the Isonic 145 is one of the boards that the distributor decided to have tested by Windsurfing Magazine in the &#39;07 board test edition.
So, the Isonic 145 now resides with the magazine testers.
I&#39;ll see if I can find a way to go over there and use the board some before they get fully into testing it.
That&#39;s the best I can do at this point.
I&#39;ll have the board back around the 1st of March, and will make it a priority to get some time on it before the sailing season starts.
Sorry,